Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HEERA LAL PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Heera Lal Pandey v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 35108 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1180 (29 April 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35108 of 2005

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli J.

Hon'ble G.P. Srivastva, J.

We have examined the order of the Tribunal dated 1st June 2004 by which the Claim Petition of the petitioner against a censure entry has been rejected. While it is true that at the time of hearing of the claim petition nobody had appeared on behalf of the petitioner but the Tribunal has recorded its finding after examining the record that in the year 2001, the petitioner, who is in the police service while posted on telephone duty at the residence of S.P., Kanpur Dehat, misbehaved with the fellow constables in a drunken state because of which a censure entry was awarded to him. A review petition was filed by the petitioner on the ground that he was not heard. The review petition has been rejected on the ground that no infirmity on merits has been pointed out in the original order dated 1st June 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter should be remanded to the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Rules of natural justice require a reasonable "opportunity" of hearing. If that opportunity is not availed, the matter can be disposed of without hearing.

Even if the petitioner was not heard, it would be a bare violation of principles of natural justice and unless some prejudice could be shown to have been caused because of such violation, no interference was called for. Having considered the entire matter and the fact that it is a mere censure entry of the year 2001, we do not find any substantial prejudice to have been caused to the petitioner because of lack of hearing. In the circumstances, no interference is called for.

This writ petition is dismissed as above.

Dated 29.4.2005

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.